Red Mosquito

I haven’t watched much of his stuff but when I did he didn’t really work for me. I can see giving him a real try one day

tree_ wrote:I haven’t watched much of his stuff but when I did he didn’t really work for me. I can see giving him a real try one day

I adore his work. And to me that's some weird dreamy shit that really hits home and works on every level. He may not be for you. But I think it's interesting that we enjoy some of the same qualities about film (and film makers) and I love seeing how those qualities are executed differently to varying affect depending on the viewer. Eye of the beholder and all that.

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:I haven’t watched much of his stuff but when I did he didn’t really work for me. I can see giving him a real try one day

I adore his work. And to me that's some weird dreamy shit that really hits home and works on every level. He may not be for you. But I think it's interesting that we enjoy some of the same qualities about film (and film makers) and I love seeing how those qualities are executed differently to varying affect depending on the viewer. Eye of the beholder and all that.

I know exactly who you’re talking about and I don’t even have to go to the previous page.

Joe we should have a viewing party one day where we explain to each other why these movies work for us throughout. My wife is getting pretty tired of it by now.

wease wrote:

epilogue wrote:

tree_ wrote:I haven’t watched much of his stuff but when I did he didn’t really work for me. I can see giving him a real try one day

I adore his work. And to me that's some weird dreamy shit that really hits home and works on every level. He may not be for you. But I think it's interesting that we enjoy some of the same qualities about film (and film makers) and I love seeing how those qualities are executed differently to varying affect depending on the viewer. Eye of the beholder and all that.

I know exactly who you’re talking about and I don’t even have to go to the previous page.

tree_ wrote:Joe we should have a viewing party one day where we explain to each other why these movies work for us throughout. My wife is getting pretty tired of it by now.

I would actually love that.

Let’s pencil it in for a future RMcast bonus content episode

Gentleman, this was the talk i wanted.

Also its time for this:

1.There Will Be Blood
2.Magnolia
3.The Master
4.Phantom Thread
5.Punch Drunk Love
6.Hard Eight
7.Boogie Nights
8.Inherent Vice

tree_ wrote:Let’s pencil it in for a future RMcast bonus content episode

VinylGuy wrote:do we really need to say that art is subjective at this point?
I feel whenever we have an opinion on something someone tell us YOU HAVE YOUR OWN TASTE AND I HAVE MINE like thats not something we already know.

It kinda baffles me because whats interesting is to engage into a deeper conversation.

just coming back to this thread. i don't know if your post was an indirect response to mine, but i'm sensitive on this topic, since i have pretty rigid ideas about meaning & art, & am compelled to respond.

i think there are two levels of response to art. one is preference -- our feelings about a work. these are arbitrary, subjective, equally legitimate & as a result equally meaningless. it's the level at which most people discuss and engage with art. it's perfectly fine.

the other level is criticism (undergirded by theory). you make an argument about the meaning of a work of art, or if meaning even obtains in it. there are better and worse accounts of why a work means what it means.

i do not subscribe to the idea that art is subjective, if we assume art is a work imbued with intention by it's maker. i do subscribe to the idea that our preferences/feelings are.

How much does artist intent factor into your own criticism or engagement with a piece? Assuming your definition above, that art is imbued with intention. How much total value to do you put on that intention when processing the work?

there is something to be said about art with widespread appeal, as opposed to not. if it affects more people.

i suppose getting away from ideas like good/bad is important.

I think good and bad are fine but only if you can articulate why. Which I guess is your point.

epilogue wrote:I think good and bad are fine but only if you can articulate why. Which I guess is your point.

fair enough, and exactly.

epilogue wrote:How much does artist intent factor into your own criticism or engagement with a piece?

intentionality is central when i'm engaging with a piece. what i'm usually trying to do is figure out if a piece is a work -- do the formal elements of a piece cohere into a meaning? and if they do, how so? and then what is the relation of the work in question to others in its tradition?

and if it the formal elements do not cohere, why not? (nearly always the imposition of some externalized, structuring force; though, sometimes, it's simple incompetence). this other thing -- what michael fried calls objecthood -- is totally interesting, too. it's just not art.

there are critical modes (postcolonialism, feminism, queer theory) beyond this mashup of formalism/historicism that are totally vital, but art is less central & more incidental through their lenses.

Malloy wrote:

epilogue wrote:How much does artist intent factor into your own criticism or engagement with a piece?

intentionality is central when i'm engaging with a piece. what i'm usually trying to do is figure out if a piece is a work -- do the formal elements of a piece cohere into a meaning? and if they do, how so? and then what is the relation of the work in question to others in its tradition?

and if it the formal elements do not cohere, why not? (nearly always the imposition of some externalized, structuring force; though, sometimes, it's simple incompetence). this other thing -- what michael fried calls objecthood -- is totally interesting, too. it's just not art.

there are critical modes (postcolonialism, feminism, queer theory) beyond this mashup of formalism/historicism that are totally vital, but art is less central & more incidental through their lenses.

I have nothing to add to this or debate about it. Just wanted to point out that I think it's a great post.

and then what is the relation of the work in question to others in its tradition?

This is something that I initially wanted to push back on. Not insofar as I disagree with anyone doing it, but just that it didn't resonate with my experience. This isn't something I do. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if that's true.

Now I'm left wondering, not whether or not I do it, but whether or not I should. I think maybe it depends on exactly what the intent is, ironically.

most of the time i just like to uncritically watch shit and post a first impression or two. making an argument is a pain in the ass.

Malloy wrote:most of the time i just like to uncritically watch shit and post a first impression or two. making an argument is a pain in the ass.

I don't disagree. The argument can get so tedious. But how one watches a movie and how it impacts/affects them is always interesting to me. Even on a "first impression" basis. Sometimes especially on that basis.

epilogue wrote:

and then what is the relation of the work in question to others in its tradition?

This is something that I initially wanted to push back on. Not insofar as I disagree with anyone doing it, but just that it didn't resonate with my experience. This isn't something I do. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if that's true.

Now I'm left wondering, not whether or not I do it, but whether or not I should. I think maybe it depends on exactly what the intent is, ironically.

i don't know how we could come to understand a piece without some broader context in which we can place it. that is, how do you know a painting is a painting, if you've never seen one. our preferences and ideas -- our ability to make descriptive statements or normative judgements -- are always being shaped in part by what we've seen before, on some kind of standard.